[CF-metadata] Missing standardnames for our our ocean model MPI-OM

From: Martina Stockhause <martina.stockhause>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:31:58 +0200

Dear Jonathan,

thank you for your comments on our proposal.

> > 1. richardson_number; 1
>
> I'd suggest this should be richardson_number_in_sea_water since it could
> also be defined in air.

Do we really need the additional "_in_sea_water"? The definition of the
richardson_number is the same in atmosphere and ocean. Therefore I don't
think we need two standard names for the richardson_number. So, I would
prefer to keep the short name.

> > 2. viscosity and diffusivity measures:
> > sea_water_vertical_viscosity; m2 s-1
> > sea_water_vertical_diffusivity; m2 s-1
> > sea_water_vertical_diffusivity_due_to_wind; m2 s-1
>
> ..., so for precision and consistency I would suggest yours should
> be ocean_vertical_momentum_diffusivity
> ocean_vertical_tracer_diffusivity

We agree to your suggestions.

> Viscosity is also a quantity in kg m-1 s-1, so "momentum diffusivity" (also
> sometimes called "kinematic viscosity") is more precise. Could you describe
> what you mean by "due to wind" in the case of diffusivity?

"due_to_wind" means induced by winds on the surface.

> > 3. water_flux_in_ocean_without_flux_correction; m s-1 [kg m-2 s-1]
>
> It might be clearer to say what *is* included rather than what is *not*
> included. What do you include in this water flux?

We include precipitation, evaporation, and runoff in this quantity. And in
water_flux_in_ocean, which is another output quantity, the restoring is
already included as well. If we explicitely mention precipitation,
evaporation, and runoff (potentially sea_ice, too) we end up with a very long
name. To exclude one by reference to water_flux_in_ocean the standard name
remains shorter.
Since the restoring is only introduced for (uncommon) uncoupled ocean model
runs, these two are equal for a coupled run.

> We define distinct standard names for quantities with different units. If
> the quantity is in kg m-2 s-1 it is a water flux. If it is in m s-1 it is
> something else; we don't have a standard name for that at present, but it's
> like the rainfall_rate I suppose, for instance.

Yes, introducing the density of freshwater of 1 kg m-3 these two units become
the same. We can use kg m-2 s-1 instead of m s-1. It should be a "flux" in
CF.

Best wishes,
Martina
Received on Mon Jun 16 2008 - 07:31:58 BST